TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT IN ACTION! Sue Peden, Travelwise Development Manager Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

Transcription

1 TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT IN ACTION! Sue Peden, Travelwise Development Manager Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust 1. THE SETTING Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust is a large 1,000 bed general/ maternity/teaching hospital complex. The hospitals are situated on the outskirts of Southampton, in the middle of a residential area. The hospital(s) have obviously expanded from the early 1900's, and all the access roads around the site are single lane two way carriageways around 7.3m wide. The site had only one main vehicle entrance, a two lane one-way access road which serve around 6,500 employees, plus associated visitors and servicing needs. There were over 12,000 vehicle movements per 12hr. weekday to and from the site with only 2,000 on-site car parking spaces. In 1993 it was estimated from surveys that demand for car parking spaces was over 2,700 giving a shortage of some 700, equivalent to 35%. 2. THE SCENARIO With only one main access and circulatory "one-way" road around the main hospital site, roads were frequently congested and sometimes obstructed by parked or waiting vehicles at localised pressure points. The situation outside was little better and in some respects worse. Whilst there were car parks on the sites, access to the single largest facility was within 20 metres of the main entrance off the public highway. There was only a single lane leading to this car park which filled up early in the morning with staff as they arrived for work. Throughout the day cars queued at the barriers entrance to this car park in the hope of spaces becoming available and queues quickly built back onto the public highway. 3. THE EFFECTS Qfleues up to half a mile long built back along the approach roads to the hospitals and the situation was worsened by displaced hospital parking on adjacent residential roads, which were also the main access roads to the sites. In places there was insufficient width left for two-way traffic to pass, particularly for wider vehicles such as buses, ambulances and fire tenders. On the hospital sites the situation had deteriorated to such an extent that: * emergency accesses and escape routes were obstructed 11

2 emergency ambulances were caught in the queues Accident and Emergency access regularly obstructed written complaints a month up to two hours to find an on-site parking space It was evident to all concerned that this situation could not be allowed to continue; of even greater concern was that forecasts were indicating traffic growth would continue to rise with easing of the pressures to use private cars. It was clear something had to be done as a matter of priority but what? 4. THE DIAGNOSIS Traditional wisdom indicated that the solution was to provide more space for the car. Many thought that a new on-site multi-storey car park(s) (MSCP) was the only practical solution. But as an idea it had its drawbacks. The City Council indicated they were strongly opposed to one as they felt it would only create more pressure on existing overloaded road networks and solve nothing in the longer term. Such a car park(s) would be difficult and expensive to provide on an already densely developed site. The fundamental question that arises from the foregoing was: should (the seemingly ever) increasing demand to use the private ear always be accommodated by providing more space? A less conventional and relatively untested approach was by managing the pressures. Such an approach had at the time been largely untried, at least in the context of UK hospitals. The effectiveness of the alternative medicine (as always) was open to question particularly as there were few examples of an approach having worked. Whilst it would reduce the need for capital funding, conversely it would increase the level of revenue support needed. The acceptability of such an approach was challenged as it would create many other problems in trying to effect a cure. But there was an increasing realisation (if not acceptance) that normal treatments were also being found to be ineffective! 5. DEVELOPING A NEW PARTNERSHIP The first part of this process w a s made easier by the fact that both key partners recognised that there were a number of serious problems. There was realisation by both the City Council and the Trust that they alone could not hope to provide the answers and effect a lasting cure without support and involvement 12

3 of others. These included: Hampshire County Council (the Highway Authority at the time) Employees, students/academics, visitors etc Other Local Hospital Trusts The local community/organisations Cyclists groups/organisations In addition to the traffic surveys that had been carried out a detailed questiormaire was circulated to hospital staff to ascertain their existing travel patterns and the real issues involved. All manner of reasons were given as to why individuals could not do without their cars to get to and from work, many claiming that a car was necessary for them to carry out Trust work during the day. An area of particular note was that over 80% of people working on site were women, many worked part time and/or shifts enabling them to undertake their childcare responsibilities. Apparently, many of the commuter trips to the hospitals were not just a direct journey from home to work, but via a childminder/school often in the opposite direction to the hospital. Without access to a car it was suggested they would not have time to fulfil all their responsibilities. This was clearly going to be a difficult area to address, so if there was a choice of where to introduce "traffic demand management" as part of a "commuter plan", then a hospital would probably be one of the last sites to choose.* 6. DEVELOPING THE REMEDIES Right from to outset it was agreed that there was no one solution and in general it was felt that the following areas would have to be explored. disabled limited increase in parking with priority for patients, their visitors and providing a separate vehicular access to A&E unit controlling and improving car access incentives to encourage change of mode improving facilities for cyclists, walkers and public transport users The City Council's Contribution Whilst the Council had indicated their opposition to a MSCP they were prepared to introduce a residents parking scheme on the roads around the hospitals to restrict and control on-street off-site parking etc. This would ensure that the Trust's on-site "traffic demand management" proposals had a realistic chance of being effective by creating a controlled parking cordon around the sites. The Council also agreed to grant planning permission for new access to A&E and to revisions to other accesses around the site. 13

4 The Hospital Trusts Contribution The Trust have introduced a number of physical and management measures. Firstly they introduce a revised road and access system around the site. Visitors arriving by car were now separated from staff who used a different entrance. Coupled with these changes, the car park by the main entrance was converted to visitor use with a new two lane entry and access moved away from the highway increasing the length of quening-lane. More bus services were encouraged onto the site and shelters erected. Additional cycle parking stands, secure cages along with lockers and showers were provided. A free staff park and ride and cash incentives have also been provided as part of the Trust's "Commuter Plan" ", to encourage staff to become less dependant upon the car. The existing public Hospital Lynx bus service running between two main sites has been supplemented by providing our own free staff mini bus service. Incentives alone are seldom sufficient to encourage staff to leave their vehicles behind at home and it is therefore necessary to consider withdrawing parking privileges in order to effect the desired outcomes. For non essential car users working normal day time shifts and living within a mile of the hospital or within a 30 minute public transport journey, parking permits have been withdrawn. Around 1000 staff are now excluded from on-site parking. 7. EVALUATING THE OUTCOMES It may be thought that a draconian approach towards the motorist has been adopted but as usual there are other sides to the story. Legitimate car users, be they staff or visitors, now generally find room to park unlike the previous hunt for non-existent spaces. Whilst at peak times, such as shift changeover, delays occur, they are minimal compared to those that used to arise, minutes instead of minutes. There are higher levels o f surveillance as a result of improved lighting and an extension of the CCTV monitoring. Outside the hospital sites, where many o f the houses do not have off-street parking, residents can now find a kerb space. The long queues that used to form daily have all but gone and wider vehicles no longer have difficulty in negotiating the approach roads. Emergency vehicles are now able to reach the A & E Unit without delay. Delays and accidents at various junctions around the site have reduced. 14

5 Has the Approach Worked? Yes we believe so. Complaints have reduced by 90% and we believe this is a rare example of where the NHS embraced "Alternative Medicine" and been able to detect a measurable benefit._ It is also important to appreciate that all these improvements have occurred not only in the context of continuing growth in the use of the private car but also a doubling of the number of patients coming onto the hospital sites between 1988/89 and 1998/99. No mean achievement in the circumstances However, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. Pressures for increased private car access to the hospitals will remain unabated for the foreseeable future and we will have to continue to monitor and adapt the situation. There is unlikely to be an end to maintaining free unobstructed access to this key community facility, thus we will need to continue to develop and introduce changes to keep pace with the challenge that use of the motor car will continue to present to us all. Sue Peden Travelwise Development Manager Mail Point 4 Southampton General Hospital Tremona Road Southampton SO16 6YD 15

6 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Cash Incentives STAFF SUBSIDISED ELEMENTS CURRENT AS AT 3/1998 For gtving up parking permit and cycling Cycle mileage allowance on Trust Business Park & Ride Sainsbury's Site S.G.H. Bus City Bus Pass Sainsbury's to S.G.H. City Bus Pass (unlimited City Wide Travel) Car Sharers - previously permit holders (for each vehicle reduction) Park & W a lk (from local superstores car park) year 1, then 4-8 per month 0.50 per mile FREE 6.00 per month - 10% reduction on full purchase price per month - 25% reduction on full purchase price year 1 then 4-8 per month FREE Patient Activity YEAR 1988/ /9 Patients treated 263, ,000 Increase in patients treated per year 265,000 % increase in patients treated 101% 16

7 Extract from C o m m u t e r Plan 1997/2000 YEAR 1997/ / /2000 Demand Gap PROVISION Car Parking 25* 120" 120" Car Sharing Park & Ride Bus Service The Cyclist The Pedestrian Total Reduction Remaining gap 75 (100) (120) (surplus) The above numbers represent the additional car parking spaces created */saved 17

8 18